TheoremBase

Doubles the variables on the compact set Ω‾×Ω‾\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega} and applies the penalised-maximum lemma; if the limiting value MM were positive, a cluster point of maximisers would be interior, Ishii's lemma would supply matrices at a nearby maximiser, and strict properness together with the structure condition would force γM≤γM2\gamma M\le\tfrac{\gamma M}{2}.

Proof

Throughout, FF, γ\gamma, ω\omega, uu and vv are as in the statement, and TT denotes the domain of ω\omega, the set of nonnegative real numbers.

Conventions. We use without further comment that ≤\le on R\mathbb{R} is transitive and compatible with addition, by the ordered field axioms and Total Order on a Set, and the weak compatibility with multiplication: if 0≤b0\le b and s≤ts\le t, then sb≤tbsb\le tb; this is immediate when b=0b=0 or s=ts=t, and otherwise follows from claim 10 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field.

Step 1 (The doubled variational problem). Write K=Ω‾K=\overline{\Omega}, which is nonempty and compact by Bounded Open Domain in Euclidean Space (ii). Equip Rn×Rn\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n} with the product metric d×d_{\times} obtained from dEd_{E} and dEd_{E}, a metric by claim 1 of The Product Metric is a Metric; then K×KK\times K is nonempty and compact in Rn×Rn\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n} by A Product of Compact Subsets is Compact in the Product Metric.

By Viscosity Subsolution and Supersolution up to the Boundary the function uu is upper semicontinuous on Ω‾\overline{\Omega} and vv is lower semicontinuous on Ω‾\overline{\Omega}. Hence, by claim 4 of Negation, Restriction, and Separated Differences of Semicontinuous Functions, the function Φ:K×K→R\Phi:K\times K\to\mathbb{R} with Φ(x,y)=u(x)−v(y)\Phi(x,y)=u(x)-v(y) is upper semicontinuous on K×KK\times K with respect to d×d_{\times}.

Let ψ:K×K→R\psi:K\times K\to\mathbb{R} be given by ψ(x,y)=dE(x,y) dE(x,y)\psi(x,y)=d_{E}(x,y)\,d_{E}(x,y). The hypotheses of The Squared-Distance Penalization Limit on a Compact Set hold for the metric space (Rn,dE)(\mathbb{R}^{n},d_{E}), the compact set KK and the functions uu and vv, so that corollary gives: ψ\psi is lower semicontinuous on K×KK\times K with respect to d×d_{\times}, 0≤ψ(x,y)0\le\psi(x,y) for every (x,y)∈K×K(x,y)\in K\times K, and ψ(x,y)=0\psi(x,y)=0 if and only if x=yx=y.

Put Ψ=12ψ\Psi=\tfrac{1}{2}\psi, so that Ψ(x,y)=12 dE(x,y)2\Psi(x,y)=\tfrac{1}{2}\,d_{E}(x,y)^{2}. By claim 8 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field the number 12\tfrac{1}{2} is positive, so Ψ\Psi is lower semicontinuous on K×KK\times K by claim 3 of Sums and Nonnegative Multiples of Semicontinuous Functions, satisfies 0≤Ψ(x,y)0\le\Psi(x,y) everywhere, and satisfies Ψ(x,y)=0\Psi(x,y)=0 if and only if ψ(x,y)=0\psi(x,y)=0, that is if and only if x=yx=y. Consequently the set

Z={ (x,y)∈K×K : Ψ(x,y)=0 }={ (x,x) : x∈Ω‾ }Z=\{\,(x,y)\in K\times K\ :\ \Psi(x,y)=0\,\}=\{\,(x,x)\ :\ x\in\overline{\Omega}\,\}

is nonempty.

The hypotheses of Limits of Penalised Maxima on a Compact Subset of a Metric Space therefore hold for the metric space (Rn×Rn,d×)\bigl(\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n},d_{\times}\bigr), the compact set K×KK\times K, and the functions Φ\Phi and Ψ\Psi. We use the notation of that lemma: for positive α∈R\alpha\in\mathbb{R}, MαM_{\alpha} is the maximum value of Φ−αΨ\Phi-\alpha\Psi on K×KK\times K and a maximiser at level α\alpha is a point at which it is attained, both provided by Limits of Penalised Maxima on a Compact Subset of a Metric Space (i), and MM is the greatest lower bound of the set of the MαM_{\alpha}, provided by Limits of Penalised Maxima on a Compact Subset of a Metric Space (ii).

By Limits of Penalised Maxima on a Compact Subset of a Metric Space (ii) we have Φ(z)≤M\Phi(z)\le M for every z∈Zz\in Z, that is

u(x)−v(x)≤Mfor every x∈Ω‾.u(x)-v(x)\le M\qquad\text{for every }x\in\overline{\Omega}.

Since adding v(x)v(x) to both sides turns u(x)−v(x)≤0u(x)-v(x)\le 0 into u(x)≤v(x)u(x)\le v(x), it suffices to prove that M≤0M\le 0.

Step 2 (Assume 0<M0<M; choice of scales). Suppose, seeking a contradiction, that M≤0M\le 0 fails. Since ≤\le is a total order, 0<M0<M, so γM\gamma M is positive by claim 5 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field and γM2\tfrac{\gamma M}{2} is positive by claim 8 of that lemma.

Apply Modulus of Continuity with ε=γM2\varepsilon=\tfrac{\gamma M}{2}: there is a positive η0∈R\eta_{0}\in\mathbb{R} such that every t∈Tt\in T with t≤η0t\le\eta_{0} satisfies ω(t)≤γM2\omega(t)\le\tfrac{\gamma M}{2}. By claim 9 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field there is η∈R\eta\in\mathbb{R} with η≤η0\eta\le\eta_{0}, η≤1\eta\le 1 and η\eta equal to η0\eta_{0} or to 11; in either case η\eta is positive, and every t∈Tt\in T with t≤ηt\le\eta satisfies t≤η0t\le\eta_{0} and hence ω(t)≤γM2\omega(t)\le\tfrac{\gamma M}{2}.

Put θ=η2\theta=\tfrac{\eta}{2} and ε∗=θ22\varepsilon^{\ast}=\tfrac{\theta^{2}}{2}, where θ2=θθ\theta^{2}=\theta\theta. By claim 8 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, θ\theta is positive, θ<η\theta<\eta and θ+θ=η\theta+\theta=\eta; by claim 5 of that lemma θ2\theta^{2} is positive, and by claim 8 again ε∗\varepsilon^{\ast} is positive with ε∗+ε∗=θ2\varepsilon^{\ast}+\varepsilon^{\ast}=\theta^{2}. Moreover θ<η≤1\theta<\eta\le1, so multiplying θ≤1\theta\le 1 by the nonnegative number θ\theta gives θ2≤θ\theta^{2}\le\theta.

Apply Limits of Penalised Maxima on a Compact Subset of a Metric Space (iv) with ε=ε∗\varepsilon=\varepsilon^{\ast}: there is α0∈R\alpha_{0}\in\mathbb{R} with 1≤α01\le\alpha_{0} such that every α∈R\alpha\in\mathbb{R} with α0≤α\alpha_{0}\le\alpha and every maximiser (x,y)(x,y) at level α\alpha satisfy

0≤αΨ(x,y)<ε∗,0≤Ψ(x,y)<ε∗,M≤Φ(x,y).0\le\alpha\Psi(x,y)<\varepsilon^{\ast},\qquad 0\le\Psi(x,y)<\varepsilon^{\ast},\qquad M\le\Phi(x,y).

For such α\alpha and (x,y)(x,y), write h=dE(x,y)=∥x−y∥h=d_{E}(x,y)=\lVert x-y\rVert, the second equality by claim 2 of Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n: Square, Distance, Vanishing, Coordinate Bounds, Homogeneity, Triangle Inequalities and Expansion of a Square, so that 2Ψ(x,y)=h22\Psi(x,y)=h^{2}. Multiplying the first two inequalities by the positive number 22 and using claim 10 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives

αh2<θ2≤θ,h2<θ2,\alpha h^{2}<\theta^{2}\le\theta,\qquad h^{2}<\theta^{2},

hence αh2<θ\alpha h^{2}<\theta by claim 2 of that lemma, and h<θh<\theta by claim 1 of Monotonicity of Squaring on the Nonnegative Elements of an Ordered Field, both hh and θ\theta being nonnegative. Adding these two strict inequalities with claim 3 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field yields

αh2+h<θ+θ=η,\alpha h^{2}+h<\theta+\theta=\eta ,

and since αh2+h\alpha h^{2}+h lies in TT, as observed in the statement, we conclude that ω(αh2+h)≤γM2\omega\bigl(\alpha h^{2}+h\bigr)\le\tfrac{\gamma M}{2}.

Step 3 (An interior maximiser). Let ιN:N→R\iota_{\mathbb{N}}:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R} be the map of Properties of the Canonical Map from the Natural Numbers to an Ordered Field and put αk=α0+ιN(k)\alpha_{k}=\alpha_{0}+\iota_{\mathbb{N}}(k) for k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N}. By claim 2 of that lemma 1≤ιN(k)1\le\iota_{\mathbb{N}}(k), so each αk\alpha_{k} is positive and α0≤αk\alpha_{0}\le\alpha_{k}. Given R∈RR\in\mathbb{R}, claim 2 of The Archimedean Property of the Real Numbers provides N∈NN\in\mathbb{N} with R−α0<ιN(N)R-\alpha_{0}<\iota_{\mathbb{N}}(N); for k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} with N≤kN\le k we have ιN(N)≤ιN(k)\iota_{\mathbb{N}}(N)\le\iota_{\mathbb{N}}(k), by claim 6 of Properties of the Canonical Map from the Natural Numbers to an Ordered Field if N<kN<k and trivially if N=kN=k, so R−α0<ιN(k)R-\alpha_{0}<\iota_{\mathbb{N}}(k) and hence R<αkR<\alpha_{k}.

For each k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} choose a maximiser (xk,yk)(x_{k},y_{k}) at level αk\alpha_{k}, which exists by Limits of Penalised Maxima on a Compact Subset of a Metric Space (i). By Limits of Penalised Maxima on a Compact Subset of a Metric Space (v) the sequence ((xk,yk))k∈N\bigl((x_{k},y_{k})\bigr)_{k\in\mathbb{N}} has a cluster point (x^,y^)(\hat{x},\hat{y}) lying in K×KK\times K, and every such cluster point satisfies Ψ(x^,y^)=0\Psi(\hat{x},\hat{y})=0 and Φ(x^,y^)=M\Phi(\hat{x},\hat{y})=M. By Step 1 the first gives x^=y^\hat{x}=\hat{y}, and the second then reads u(x^)−v(x^)=Mu(\hat{x})-v(\hat{x})=M.

Since 0<M0<M, adding v(x^)v(\hat{x}) gives v(x^)<u(x^)v(\hat{x})<u(\hat{x}), so the hypothesis u(x)≤v(x)u(x)\le v(x) for x∈∂Ωx\in\partial\Omega shows x^∉∂Ω\hat{x}\notin\partial\Omega. As Ω‾=Ω∪∂Ω\overline{\Omega}=\Omega\cup\partial\Omega by Bounded Open Domain in Euclidean Space (iii), we get x^∈Ω\hat{x}\in\Omega. Since Ω\Omega is open, Open Subset of a Metric Space provides a positive ρ∈R\rho\in\mathbb{R} such that every x∈Rnx\in\mathbb{R}^{n} with dE(x,x^)<ρd_{E}(x,\hat{x})<\rho lies in Ω\Omega.

By Cluster Point of a Sequence in a Metric Space, applied with ε=ρ\varepsilon=\rho, there is k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} with d×((xk,yk),(x^,x^))<ρd_{\times}\bigl((x_{k},y_{k}),(\hat{x},\hat{x})\bigr)<\rho; by claim 3 of The Product Metric is a Metric this gives dE(xk,x^)<ρd_{E}(x_{k},\hat{x})<\rho and dE(yk,x^)<ρd_{E}(y_{k},\hat{x})<\rho, so xk,yk∈Ωx_{k},y_{k}\in\Omega. Fix such a kk and write α=αk\alpha=\alpha_{k}, x=xkx=x_{k}, y=yky=y_{k} and h=∥x−y∥h=\lVert x-y\rVert; the conclusions of Step 2 apply to α\alpha and (x,y)(x,y) because α0≤α\alpha_{0}\le\alpha.

Step 4 (Ishii's lemma at (x,y)(x,y)). By Viscosity Subsolution and Supersolution up to the Boundary, u∣Ωu|_{\Omega} is a viscosity subsolution and v∣Ωv|_{\Omega} a viscosity supersolution of FF on Ω\Omega; in particular, by Viscosity Subsolution and Supersolution of a Second-Order Equation, u∣Ωu|_{\Omega} is upper semicontinuous on Ω\Omega and v∣Ωv|_{\Omega} is lower semicontinuous on Ω\Omega.

Since (x,y)(x,y) is a maximiser at level α\alpha and Ω⊆Ω‾\Omega\subseteq\overline{\Omega}, every x′,y′∈Ωx',y'\in\Omega satisfy

u(x′)−v(y′)−α2∥x′−y′∥2=Φ(x′,y′)−αΨ(x′,y′)≤Φ(x,y)−αΨ(x,y)=u(x)−v(y)−α2∥x−y∥2,u(x')-v(y')-\tfrac{\alpha}{2}\lVert x'-y'\rVert^{2}=\Phi(x',y')-\alpha\Psi(x',y')\le\Phi(x,y)-\alpha\Psi(x,y)=u(x)-v(y)-\tfrac{\alpha}{2}\lVert x-y\rVert^{2},

using claim 2 of Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n: Square, Distance, Vanishing, Coordinate Bounds, Homogeneity, Triangle Inequalities and Expansion of a Square. The hypothesis of Ishii's Lemma: Test Data and Matrix Bounds at a Maximum of a Quadratically Penalised Difference therefore holds for Ω\Omega, the functions u∣Ωu|_{\Omega} and v∣Ωv|_{\Omega}, the parameter α\alpha, the points xx and yy, and any positive δ\delta, for instance δ=1\delta=1. Let X,Y∈S(n)X,Y\in\mathcal{S}(n) be as provided there and put q=α(x−y)q=\alpha(x-y). Then Ishii's Lemma: Test Data and Matrix Bounds at a Maximum of a Quadratically Penalised Difference (i) says that (x,u(x),q,X)\bigl(x,u(x),q,X\bigr) is approximable by test data from above for u∣Ωu|_{\Omega} and that (y,v(y),q,Y)\bigl(y,v(y),q,Y\bigr) is approximable by test data from below for v∣Ωv|_{\Omega}, and Ishii's Lemma: Test Data and Matrix Bounds at a Maximum of a Quadratically Penalised Difference (iii) says that

−3α(∥ξ∥2+∥ζ∥2) ≤ ξ⋅(Xξ)−ζ⋅(Yζ) ≤ 3α∥ξ−ζ∥2for all ξ,ζ∈Rn.-3\alpha\bigl(\lVert\xi\rVert^{2}+\lVert\zeta\rVert^{2}\bigr)\ \le\ \xi\cdot(X\xi)-\zeta\cdot(Y\zeta)\ \le\ 3\alpha\lVert\xi-\zeta\rVert^{2}\qquad\text{for all }\xi,\zeta\in\mathbb{R}^{n}.

Since FF is continuous, it is in particular continuous at the two quadruples just named, so Viscosity Inequalities Pass to Limits of Test-Function Data (i) and Viscosity Inequalities Pass to Limits of Test-Function Data (ii) give

F(x,u(x),q,X)≤0≤F(y,v(y),q,Y).F\bigl(x,u(x),q,X\bigr)\le 0\le F\bigl(y,v(y),q,Y\bigr).

Step 5 (The contradiction). Write r=u(x)r=u(x) and s=v(y)s=v(y). By Step 2, M≤Φ(x,y)=r−sM\le\Phi(x,y)=r-s, and 0<M0<M, so 0<r−s0<r-s and hence s≤rs\le r.

By condition 2 of the statement and clause 2 of Strictly Proper Second-Order Equation Operator, applied at the point xx with the vector qq, the matrix XX and the pair s≤rs\le r,

γ (r−s)≤F(x,r,q,X)−F(x,s,q,X).\gamma\,(r-s)\le F(x,r,q,X)-F(x,s,q,X).

Now

F(x,r,q,X)−F(x,s,q,X)=(F(x,r,q,X)−F(y,s,q,Y))+(F(y,s,q,Y)−F(x,s,q,X)).F(x,r,q,X)-F(x,s,q,X)=\bigl(F(x,r,q,X)-F(y,s,q,Y)\bigr)+\bigl(F(y,s,q,Y)-F(x,s,q,X)\bigr).

The first summand is at most 00, by Step 4. The second is at most ω(αh2+h)\omega\bigl(\alpha h^{2}+h\bigr) by condition 3 of the statement, applied with the points xx and yy, the value ss, the parameter α\alpha and the matrices XX and YY, whose hypothesis is the two-sided bound of Step 4 and in which α(x−y)=q\alpha(x-y)=q and ∥x−y∥=h\lVert x-y\rVert=h. Adding the two bounds gives

F(x,r,q,X)−F(x,s,q,X)≤ω(αh2+h).F(x,r,q,X)-F(x,s,q,X)\le\omega\bigl(\alpha h^{2}+h\bigr).

Finally, multiplying M≤r−sM\le r-s by the nonnegative number γ\gamma gives γM≤γ(r−s)\gamma M\le\gamma(r-s), so combining the last three displays with Step 2,

γM ≤ γ (r−s) ≤ ω(αh2+h) ≤ γM2.\gamma M\ \le\ \gamma\,(r-s)\ \le\ \omega\bigl(\alpha h^{2}+h\bigr)\ \le\ \tfrac{\gamma M}{2}.

Adding −γM2-\tfrac{\gamma M}{2} to both sides and using γM2+γM2=γM\tfrac{\gamma M}{2}+\tfrac{\gamma M}{2}=\gamma M, from claim 8 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, gives γM2≤0\tfrac{\gamma M}{2}\le 0. Together with the positivity of γM2\tfrac{\gamma M}{2} established in Step 2 this yields 0<00<0 by claim 2 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, which is false.

Therefore M≤0M\le 0, and by Step 1 we conclude that u(x)≤v(x)u(x)\le v(x) for every x∈Ω‾x\in\overline{\Omega}.

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…